Skip to comments.Woman fired for eating bacon (Offending Muslims a Termination Offense in Orlando)
Posted on 08/17/2004 2:32:06 PM PDT by SauronOfMordor
Hold the bacon
Apart from Hurricane Charley, we've been following a most intriguing story out of Orlando, Fla., where a woman says she was fired from her job because she ate a bacon, lettuce and tomato sandwich at work, offending Muslim employees.
According to the Orlando Sentinel, Lina Morales has filed a religious-discrimination lawsuit against Rising Star Telecommunications, saying she lost her administrative position because she violated a policy banning pork and pork products from the workplace.
She says the rule "constitutes religious discrimination because it is based in Islamic law for the benefit of some Muslim employees who were offended by the presence of pork -- and at the expense of non-Muslims such as Morales, who is Catholic," explains the newspaper.
"I felt I was being discriminated against because I was not Muslim. I wasn't trying to make somebody else eat it," the woman reasons.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
A company should be allowed to make its own rules.
That being said, if a Muslim was fired for sacrificing a goat on company time and property, and got fired, I'm sure the outrage from the left would be defeaning.
Didn't this happen last month?
Or am I having deja` vu all over again?
Or if a Muslim was to marry a 9-year-old girl...
But bacon is delicious....
The Moslem should not be forced to eat pork, but their preventing other people from doing so is simply ridiculous.
This politically-correct crap has got to go!
Didn't the Prophet (may peace be upon him) marry a girl when she was 7 and consumate it when she was 9 (and he was 54)?
If a guy rushed into the office you work and shot the woman in the next cubicle it would be a heinous crime. Unless it's an "honor killing". Then it's just a cultural quirk. < sarc off >
From the article I was reading on this the other day, the problem was not because she ate pork, but because she didn't listen after being twice asked not to cook pork in the company microwave where muslim employees prepared their food.
This seems two different issues to me. In any case, I think some clarification is needed here of exactly what happened.
They obviously look at is as a Food Jihad.
"A company should be allowed to make its own rules."
I predict the woman wins this one.
They should have the right to do the above, as it is THEIR company.
What if a company had rules prohibiting all non Muslims from working there because they were offensive to Muslims? What if a company had rules prohibiting blacks from working for them because they offended white supremacists?
All the above should be OK as well, as it is THEIR company. No one has the right not to be offended.
So who decides who has to be tolerant of what
Why is it the majority has to be tolerant of minorities but minorities don't have to be tolerant of the majority?
Yeah, that sucks that that's the case. No one should be forced to tolerate another on their own private property.
For some reason, having a stridently Muslim telecom/engineering/Internet company operating in the US is "interesting" to me. Their Current project is:
- The Oasis Al Iman client: Capitol Performance International, Inc. (IBC) The British Virgin Islands and Rising Star Telecommunications, Inc.
- Rising Star is currently supervising a large scale complex telecommunication project that involves setting up an Application Service Provider that provides unique features inculding:
- Filtered Access to the World Wide Web
- Virtual Web
- E-Store Web Casting access to Flat Electronic Data Interface (FEDI)
- Additionally, in support of FEDI, RSTI is supervising the building of state-of-the-art telecommunications, teleconferencing facilities and television studios globally.
- The engineering challenge involves multi-point secure satellite and ground communication systems with complete redundancy and the ability to prevent and avoid the hazzards of fraudulent access, misuse, sedition, pornography, elicit solicitations, corporate espionage and intrusion, hostile enviormental acts, war, weather and natural disasters
Let's analyze your reasoning.
A newspaper is "incorporated."
A "federal and state rules and regulations" forbids the incorporated newspaper disparaging or disagreeing with legislators in articles or editorials.
According to you the "corporation" has to abide by those "rules and regulations."
What happen to Amendment I? Where in the incorporation papers from the state of incorporation does it state you, as a stockholder/property owner of the incorporation, "forfeit" constitutionally protected rights?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.